Afghanistan Minister of Trade Anwar-ul-Haq Ahady and Pakistani Minister of Trade Makhdoom Amin Fahi shake hands as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, applaud after the signing of a trade treaty between Pakistan and Afghanistan on Sunday in Islamabad, Pakistan. (Source: www.thehindu.com)
Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad to start a two-day visit aimed at improving U.S./Pakistan relations and to solidify Pakistan’s support of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. A major part of Secretary Clinton’s strategy is a $500 million package in economic and development aid, particularly for hospitals, hydroelectric plants, and clean drinking water projects.
Secretary Clinton noted, “We know that there is some questioning, even suspicion, about what the United States is doing today and I can only respond by saying that very clearly we have a commitment that is much broader and deeper than it has ever been.”
The reaction across the Muslim world has been less enthusiastic:
Pakistan’s The Nation: “We are told she has come with a $500 million aid package and apparently the aid will go into power, agriculture, health and dams also – but as we all know for the Americans there is no such thing as a ‘free lunch’ – and already our country is bleeding because of the alliance with the US so we are going to be bled some more with this aid package.”
Lebanon’s Daily Star: “The aid money for Pakistan, meanwhile, aims at funding projects such as hospitals and dams which would burnish American soft power, as the US still fights an overwhelmingly negative perception in the Middle East and Muslim world despite Obama’s successes in rescusitating the US image elsewhere.” (Read the editorial here.)
Despite these protestations, it seems clear that Pakistan does need the help: Pakistan has faced a series of serious power outages in recent months, and Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said Pakistan faces electrical outages of 6 to 8 hours in urban areas and 10 to 12 hours in rural areas, noting that the country’s economic growth has been adversely affected. The U.S. aid package includes seven projects designed to improve Pakistan’s hydroelectric power system, including improvements to the Gomal Zam and the Satpara dams, each intended to provide 17.4 megawatts of power, as well as plans to develop the country’s natural gas distribution systems.
It seems increasingly common that U.S. development projects abroad are seen as forms of “soft power” (as mentioned in the Lebanese editorial)- a way to increase influence and power in a region where the U.S. is less than welcome. But what if the need for development is actually there? Do plans like “improving energy systems” in Pakistan come from the purely altruistic view of bettering the worse off, or are they Trojan Horse projects for military activities and foreign influence, the way much of the Muslim world seems to believe? Is it possible for U.S. aid projects to be both?
Thoughts?
